The “Bernie Bros” smoking gun is no smoking gun at all
In the week after the election, I didn’t listen to or read any national punditry. I still don’t. As a result, I was late to the Hillary supporters “Bernie Bros” smear which identifies Sanders supporters as crypto-racists who want to throw POC, women, and gays under the bus in order to appeal to white nationalists who live in the rust belt. Entering late, I’ve been on my heals and frankly confused about the whole zero sum game that was underway. My fist reaction was, “C’mon guys, everyone can be a little right and a little wrong.” But that didn’t work. Collegiality seemed to have completely broken down.
Here is my forensic take on what happened:
In the wake of the shocking election results, Bernie Sanders didn’t do what DC insiders and Democratic Brahmins wanted him to do, which was genuflect in the direction of the Clinton campaign and praise Clinton for her efforts. Instead, he did what he has always done and told the truth about the Clinton campaign’s weaknesses, and basically got some stuff off his chest. Specifically, he said:
““It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry…We need candidates — black, white and Latino and gay and male, we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of today.”
In the emmotionally charged atmosphere of campaign post mortems and finger poitning, that bit of plain spoken common sense entered the DC spin machine and came out, “Sanders slams identity politics…Condemns appeals to diversity”
Some of that spin was from High Dems smarting from a loss that should have been a win, but part of the spin was from conservatives who never pass up a chance to try and hammer in a wedge. Politico’ headline, for example, was: Sanders slams identity politics as Democrats figure out their future , even though in the same article, President Obama is quoted as saying pretty much the same thing as Sanders:
“And one message I do have for Democrats is that a strategy that’s just micro-targeting particular, discrete groups in a Democratic coalition sometimes will win you elections, but it’s not going to win you the broad mandate that you need,”
So a lot of shell-shocked Dems wanting to be mad at someone got mad at Sanders and anyone who had the temerity to say that he might have point. And these shell-shocked Dems, who so readily fell into vituperative hatred for their fellow Democrats, all because those Democrats happen to agree with President Obama that our strategy needs to be better, are being played.
That’s my take based on the evidence, but I could be wrong. I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong. I am open to persuasion, and change my views if I find that I have misinterpreted something, or if new information comes to light.
” …black, white and Latino and gay and male, we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy.”
Funny how it took an old white Jewish guy to say that.
So let’s get some context for Obama’s quote out of the way:
Targeting outside of the base of the party. Wonder who that is?
Link to where this is, please:
I was late to the Hillary supporters “Bernie Bros” smear which identifies Sanders supporters as crypto-racists who want to throw POC, women, and gays under the bus in order to appeal to white nationalists who live in the rust belt.
You don’t get your victim on via false pretenses.
I personally viewed the “Bernie Bro” as one that leveraged a right-wing falsehood to further their candidate.
For those who have been endowed with the nuance gene, there is a different between micro-targeting and identity politics. Crafting messages that appeal to smaller/specific groups is not the same as basing one’s campaign on a broad campaign theme based on identity. One doesn’t send messages intended for firemen to plumbers.
Just to be clear, Sanders practiced identity politics in appealing millennials. Clinton’s campaign appealed to minorities, women, and LBGT. Trump appealed to white workers and racists (yes some of them were the same person, but not all of them). There was no campaign that appealed to the broad spectrum of voters, regardless of race, creed, color, origin, or orientation.
The real question is was there or could there ever be any measure of common ground based on shared values and goals that would appeal to the entire spectrum? Unless the basic “physiological” and “safety” needs are met, any focus higher in hierarchy probably falls on deaf ears. Economic and safety concerns, which are held by a vast number of Americans, will always take precedence over those higher levels.
Trump appeal to those basic needs. Sanders did it with millennials. My opinion is that Clinton did not exploit those needs very well in her messaging.
” I was late to the Hillary supporters “Bernie Bros” smear which identifies Sanders supporters as crypto-racists who want to throw POC, women, and gays under the bus in order to appeal to white nationalists who live in the rust belt. ”
Equine Excrement, the term Bernie Bro emerged when Sanders supporters continued to weep, whine and bash Clinton like a collection of bratty kids having a tantrum after he was defeated. The goal remains to win, we lost and die hard Bernie voters made it worse.
The term Bernie Bro existed long before the primary was even over. Do a google search on the term and you will find it being used in February at the latest. So you entire post is now wrong.
I was using it in the same context you have used it since the election. That seemed self-evident to me, but there is a lot of make-believe going on, so I shouldn’t be surprised about your pretending to misunderstand.
Cassandra:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/clinton-strategist-karen-finney-blames-election-loss-on-sexism-from-bernie-bros/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/to-resist-trump-clinton-democrats-must-accept-real.html
Jason330, this issue is way to complicated for your bros mind to handle. Please let the adults talk here.
Josh Marshall (in addition to having a great first name) has one of the most cogent analysis on this topic
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thoughts-on-the-post-2016-strawman-war
Cassandra,
Enough with your “Bernie Bro” = Hillary defeat. She was a remarkably flawed candidate and had a remarkably inept advisory staff. To wit: “advisor Karen Finney blamed the Democratic candidate’s loss on the fact that male supporters of Bernie Sanders made young women feel hesitant to express their support for Clinton online”. What a crock. For Christ’s sake, you can’t make that kind of bull up unless you are commit-ably delusional. Karen Finney would be better served looking in a mirror for her excuses and villains. You “POORLY-RUN CAMPAIGN DENIERS” make the climate change folks arguments look credible.
Representative John Kowalko
Enough with your “Bernie Bro” = Hillary defeat.
Hey Representative John Kowalko — I told you the other day that you weren’t anywhere near being a part of this conversation and yet here you are driving by with even more cluelessness. Have some respect and figure out what the conversation is rather than just spewing out this shit. Because I’ve never claimed that the Bernie Bros = Hillary defeat, even though Jason here wants you to think I did.
So please STFU until you can get some facts here, OK?
why can’t kowalko be “part of the conversation?” he’s making (at least) as much sense as you are.
Kowalko is in this conversation launching off with an accusation that isn’t true. As long as that is the case, he isn’t part of the conversation.
You didn’t even START this thread. Who the bleep are you to decide who is and isn’t part of the conversation?
You want to stop someone from commenting? How about bringing it up for a vote? Otherwise, you might want to stop stifling conversation that isn’t to your liking. It’s not your blog, it’s not your thread, it’s not your ‘truth’, and it’s not your right to chase people away.
My, my Cassandra
” I told you the other day that you weren’t anywhere near being a part of this conversation”. Wow, you are certainly going to impress a lot of people with that less than cordial disposition of yours especially with all of those logical arguments you make. I didn’t realize that this was your personal site and that you were the appointed censorship committee of one. I will certainly make a concerted effort to ignore your display of ignorance, foul temperament and feeble attempts to legitimize your points of view but I will not (and you have no apparent authority or logical reason to petulantly demand that I do) STFU. I must say you are quite the classy personality, almost as sophisticated as the typical Trump supporter. Good luck with winning arguments using that approach.
Representative John Kowalko
It is my right to call people out when they make claims about stuff I did not say. If you want me to not comment in a thread, then tell your commenters to stop lying about me.
Otherwise I’m all in on “stifling” conversation that needs to lie about me to actually exist.
Representative John Kowalko:
Good luck with winning arguments using that approach.
I don’t need to win the arguments with you. That’s not much of a target. All I need is for you to stop acting like Trump himself and just lying about what I’ve said here — just to have an argument.
It’s that easy.
Challenging your convoluted linguistics does not qualify as ‘lying about me’.
This need to get personal and attack people is coming from you. Others are merely discussing the issue, sometimes in terms with which you do not agree. Sometimes in strong and assertive terms, which are the terms with which you have discussed issues over the years, me too. Fair enough. But I think you’re going way over the line.
This blog should not be about shutting people up. Shut up enough people and the blog won’t exist. If this shit keeps up, I question whether it should. If you have issues with commenters, bring it up for a vote as to whether they should be moderated. Otherwise, don’t substitute your anger as a justification for censorship.
Saying that I am somehow equating Bernie Bros with Hillary’s loss is a lie.
Full stop.
If not, then you can provide links.
This need to get personal and attack people is coming from you.
That’s rich. Tell it to Sean Barney.
You once again are deliberately misrepresenting that false equation. That’s not what was said, that’s what you chose to take out of it. You chose to comment in this thread. That’s your right. Just as it’s the right of others to comment on this thread. You don’t get to decide who to shut up.
As to Sean Barney. You mean the Sean Barney who you claimed on this blog was a progressive? Who you claimed that you had explained to me why he was a progressive? Who you said I was ‘squinting’ and not listening to you so you weren’t going to explain to me again or to the people on DL as to why you viewed him as a progressive?
You actually did lie about me on that issue on this blog. For days on end. Oh, and wasn’t it you just a couple of days ago who claimed I was ‘changing the subject’ by bringing up the Sean Barney issue? You deplore someone’s tactics, then you deploy them.
So, right back at you. BTW, why do you think Sean Barney is a progressive? I’m sure everyone wants to know.
My take: I think your bullying is ruining this blog. I’ve been asking myself what the blog’s purpose is post-election. I think we need to move together as an action-forcing mechanism. This constant rehashing serves no purpose other than to drain the energy from it. I hope the contributors and our commenters can soon move forward in common purpose. This is getting us nowhere.
So you don’t have a link to where I made this claim that Kowalko says I made:
Enough with your “Bernie Bro” = Hillary defeat.
Is that right?
Then back off. Because Kowalko lied and I am entitled to point that out.
And given how personal and vicious your attack on Barney was, you are in absolutely no position to ask other people to stand down. The difference here is that you had no reason other than your own irrational dislike of the guy to attack him so. If you think you are going to police my behavior, you better make sure your house is on lock. And since it isn’t you can stop now. Because this bit of policing has no credibility whatsoever given your own behavior.
I think your bullying is ruining this blog.
I’m not bullying anyone. But I can see that folks desperate to get to their echo chamber could imagine that.
And seriously, one of the biggest drawbacks to this blog is your constant need to set yourself up as some progressive kingmaker.
I know you aren’t going to stop. So why should I?
My attacks on Barney were not personal and vicious. That is a lie. A damnable lie, actually. It’s what you do when backed into a corner.
You are a liar. I have no respect for you because you deserve none.
As to bullying, if you can’t see that you’re doing it, there’s nothing I can say.
A damnable lie, actually. It’s what you do when backed into a corner.
This is your behavior, actually. To a T. What happened to the link that showed that Kowalko was not wrong?
See?
there’s nothing I can say.
Truest thing you’ve said in a long time.
There was a time that reading the comments on Delaware Liberal was informative and enjoyable. That time has passed. Whether is the casual misogyny, the unnecessarily angry reply, or the condescending-from-on-high, or the “I was right, you were wrong… Therefore you have ruined the world… the DL comment section has pretty much become the same as the comment section on every other political site.
And every one of the regular commenters/blog-runners are guilty to varying degrees, as are the special name guest stars who pop every once in awhile to flex their vocabulary. Hell, the majority of us have been guilty at one time or another, but a solid handful are turning it into a regular thing.
And while that evolution probably shouldn’t surprise me, it is nonetheless disappointing.
No, you’re right, Prop Joe. We’re all guilty to some extent, certainly including me.
Cassandra, ElSom, Jason, John Kowalko … seems like all of you need to settle down for an hour or two of Drinking Liberally. Cheers!
“There was a time that reading the comments on Delaware Liberal was informative and enjoyable.”
I think it still is. I especially like what I consider to be the excellently curated, Daily Thread, which saves me from having to scour the interworld on my own.
An observation and what I hope is considered constructive criticism. There seems to be a trend towards being dismissive with each other, devolving into acrimony and personal criticism. That’s a little surprising to me since I thought of all of you as a pretty tight group. A heavy investment in an issue should not preclude healthy debate.
I kind of wonder if this is a consequence of the long election season and its result. Whatever the reason, I’m sure you folks have more shared values than differences.
I am not a liberal or a Democrat, but I consider a DL a vital resource, especially for statewide issues. And I’m sure I’m just one of many.
I’m going to Cancun in early January. Maybe you folks could use a little break as well.
If I may chime in…
I know a bully when I see one…
The commentary in the post is evident of the Bernie Bros issue. God what a micro of the macro. Up to and including DL’s own contributors.
Some serious butt-hurt is still lingering a full 6 weeks later.
“Then back off. Because Kowalko lied and I am entitled”
man isn’t that the truth….
Guys, guys, we can all agree that you’re all just… just awful.
“So a lot of shell-shocked Dems wanting to be mad at someone got mad at Sanders and anyone who had the temerity to say that he might have point. And these shell-shocked Dems, who so readily fell into vituperative hatred for their fellow Democrats, all because those Democrats happen to agree with President Obama that our strategy needs to be better, are being played.”
330’s analysis is almost as good as his spelling. “[Democrats] who so readily fell into vituperative hated for their fellow Democrats”? That sounds an awful lot like Bernie’s starry-eyed masses, who happily swallowed the bullshit that the alt-left and alt-right spoon-fed them until they rejected any sort of incrementalism, any sort of moderation, any sort of acknowledgement of how our system of government even works, to the point that all but the least viable Democrats were anathema to them.
I don’t blame Bernie Sanders or his supporters for Hillary losing. I blame Hillary, I blame Comey, I blame fake news. I don’t blame Bernie. But he sure as shit could have done more to help, been more full-throated as a surrogate, and checked his arrogance for long enough to recognize that he was never in a position to be the arbiter of how legitimate anyone else’s progressivism is. His calling out “identity politics” is bullshit precisely because, in the same breath, he’ll tell you that his supporters who went third party, stayed home, whatever, all because the “revolution” didn’t center around his cult of personality, were not to blame. The sheer gall of his campaign and its supporters is staggering.
Maybe our team lost not because we added transgender players to the roster, but because half of our teammates picked up their gear and walked home when the group wanted to use a slightly different playbook. You want to stop losing? Take a note from the GOP. At least they came home.
Transgender players? Like Roberta Muldoon, the former linebacker in “The World According to Garp”? John Lithgow’s breakout role, IIRC.